RNB calls for prevention targets in European waste policy

The European Commission is currently working on a revision of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The Waste Framework Directive sets the general waste policy for all European member states. The WFD establishes recycling targets, determines when something can be classified as a secondary raw material, and contains rules on extended producer responsibility (EPR). The starting point for this is always the waste hierarchy (see Figure 1). According to the WFD, European member states are also obliged to follow this hierarchy when formulating policy. Figure 1 Prevention (preventing a product from becoming waste) is at the top of the waste hierarchy and is therefore the most desirable option. However, prevention targets are not part of the current WFD. Although the WFD does mention prevention, it is left to member states to implement this. Furthermore, the definition of prevention remains vague; it is often associated with waste management, such as recycling, whereas within the waste hierarchy prevention should be about producing less waste. The fact that the current European approach does not contribute enough to the goal of sharply reducing European waste production is evidenced by the fact that the amount of waste in Europe has only increased over the past decade. To ensure that the European Commission takes action on prevention, RNB, together with ECOS, EEB, RREUSE and Zero Waste Europe, has drawn up a position paper in which they focus on prevention targets. Prevention targets In the paper, the environmental organisations jointly advocate for a number of concrete matters that they believe should be central to the revision of the WFD: The inclusion of overarching waste prevention targets, supported by prevention targets per waste stream; Emphasising the role that producers have to play in the upstream phase of the chain, where mandatory resource reduction targets must be introduced; EPR schemes should not only focus on the waste phase of products, but precisely also on the design and production phase, by means of tools for prevention, repair, and reuse. In addition, the role of producer responsibility organisations (PROs) must be revised; Minimum requirements for EPR must also apply to EPR systems yet to be introduced, such as textiles. Within the current approach, businesses are given a lot of freedom to decide how targets are achieved. This leads to an approach where costs are reduced as much as possible, while overproduction is not curbed. By introducing quantitative targets for waste prevention, member states are encouraged to shift the focus from waste management to the source of the problem, namely overproduction and resource use. If this change does not occur and the focus remains primarily on recycling, for example, it is theoretically possible for raw material consumption for production to continue to increase. This would result in an increase in the negative environmental impact. The role of producers The WFD also determines the ‘rules of the game’ that apply to EPR schemes. Therefore, it is important that during the revision, the European Commission critically examines the functioning of existing EPR schemes to draw lessons from them. We have previously written about the issues surrounding the governance of EPR schemes and the dual role that PROs often play in this. In our joint position paper, we also draw attention to this issue. Specifically, we ask the European Commission to include additional regulations in the WFD that ensure the negative influence currently exerted by PROs on environmental policy is restricted. This must ensure that: PROs no longer use their position to lobby against environmental policy at national and European level; the governance structure of PROs is addressed so that stakeholders, such as public authorities, environmental organisations and waste management operators, are no longer fully dependent on PROs for data provision, contracting and policy effectiveness. Public authorities, in turn, will take more control and ensure that a broader group of stakeholders is involved in policy design; attempts by PROs to shift the responsibility for litter and waste to consumers, for example through clean-up campaigns, are discouraged; PROs are no longer difficult for public authorities to monitor, because authorities are completely dependent on them for the provision of reliable data, which is often difficult to verify. Currently, Article 8a of the WFD includes provisions on stakeholder involvement, reporting methods, control mechanisms and transparency, among other things. However, these provisions are complied with to varying degrees, and it is not defined what falls and, crucially, what does not fall within the scope

The European Commission is currently working on a revision of the Waste Framework Directive(WFD). The Waste Framework Directive sets the general waste policy for all European member states. The WFD establishes recycling targets, determines when something can be classified as a secondary raw material, and contains rules on extended producer responsibility (EPR). The starting point for this is always the waste hierarchy (see Figure 1). According to the WFD, European member states are also obliged to follow this hierarchy when formulating policy.

Figure 1

Prevention (preventing a product from becoming waste) is at the top of the waste hierarchy and is therefore the most desirable option. However, prevention targets are not part of the current WFD. Although the WFD does mention prevention, it is left to member states to implement this. Furthermore, the definition of prevention remains vague; it is often associated with waste management, such as recycling, whereas within the waste hierarchy prevention should be about producing less waste. The fact that the current European approach does not contribute enough to the goal of sharply reducing European waste production is evidenced by the fact that the amount of waste in Europe has only increased over the past decade. To ensure that the European Commission takes action on prevention, RNB, together with ECOS, EEB, RREUSE and Zero Waste Europe, has drawn up a position paper in which they focus on prevention targets.

Prevention targets

In the paper, the environmental organisations jointly advocate for a number of concrete matters that they believe should be central to the revision of the WFD:

The inclusion of overarching waste prevention targets, supported by prevention targets per waste stream;

Emphasising the role that producers have to play in the upstream phase of the chain, where mandatory resource reduction targets must be introduced;

EPR schemes should not only focus on the waste phase of products, but precisely also on the design and production phase, by means of tools for prevention, repair, and reuse. In addition, the role of producer responsibility organisations (PROs) must be revised;

Minimum requirements for EPR must also apply to EPR systems yet to be introduced, such as textiles.

Within the current approach, businesses are given a lot of freedom to decide how targets are achieved. This leads to an approach where costs are reduced as much as possible, while overproduction is not curbed. By introducing quantitative targets for waste prevention, member states are encouraged to shift the focus from waste management to the source of the problem, namely overproduction and resource use. If this change does not occur and the focus remains primarily on recycling, for example, it is theoretically possible for raw material consumption for production to continue to increase. This would result in an increase in the negative environmental impact.

The role of producers

The WFD also determines the ‘rules of the game’ that apply to EPR schemes. Therefore, it is important that during the revision, the European Commission critically examines the functioning of existing EPR schemes to draw lessons from them. We wrote previously about the issues surrounding the governance of EPR schemes and the dual role that PROs often play in this. In our joint position paper, we also draw attention to this issue. Specifically, we ask the European Commission to include additional regulations in the WFD that ensure the negative influence currently exerted by PROs on environmental policy is restricted. This must ensure that:

PROs no longer use their position to lobby against environmental policy at national and European level;

the governance structure of PROs is addressed so that stakeholders, such as public authorities, environmental organisations and waste management operators, are no longer fully dependent on PROs for data provision, contracting and policy effectiveness. Public authorities, in turn, will take more control and ensure that a broader group of stakeholders is involved in policy design;

attempts by PROs to shift the responsibility for litter and waste to consumers, for example through clean-up campaigns, are discouraged;

PROs are no longer difficult for public authorities to monitor, because authorities are completely dependent on them for the provision of reliable data, which is often difficult to verify.

Currently, Article 8a of the WFD includes provisions on stakeholder involvement, reporting methods, control mechanisms and transparency, among other things. However, these provisions are complied with to varying degrees, and it is not defined what falls and, crucially, what does not fall within the responsibility of PROs. In addition, in practice, public authorities view PROs as the main stakeholders within EPR policy. The argument here is that producers ultimately have to implement the policy, and they are therefore best placed to help design new policy. PROs operate from the perspective of setting up the scheme as cost-efficiently as possible, where environmental gain is not taken as the primary starting point. When cost-efficiency is put at the heart of policy development, rather than the optimisation of environmental benefit, the result is watered-down environmental policy.

RNB is of the opinion that environmental policy must be developed differently and its implementation must be better monitored. For this, involving a broader group of stakeholders in the development of EPR policy is essential. Article 8a of the WFD stipulates that public authorities must regularly facilitate dialogue between various stakeholders, such as municipalities, producers, NGOs and waste processors. However, this is currently not happening. The NVRD also recently called attention to this. For a more inclusive governance of EPR schemes, the financial responsibility of PROs must be separated from strategic responsibility. According to researchers from Utrecht University, one of the possible ways to achieve this is through a so-called circular value management organisation. In this, a broad group of stakeholders is represented, and they ensure that circularity is anchored in the EPR system instead of focusing primarily on recycling and waste processing.

The inclusion of prevention targets, combined with regulation for EPR systems and PROs, must ensure that the Waste Framework Directive becomes a catalyst for the reduction of resource use in Europe.

The position paper has been submitted to the European Commission. RNB is also submitting it as an annex to the consultation for the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, which runs until 16 August.

You can read the full position paper here.